Edgehill Road

2010-01-03T11:16:00.002-05:00

Where's Craig? He's in here. Find his voice or picture...
!!!WARNING!!!GRAPHIC LANGUAGE!!!

New Year's Eve Games

2009-12-30T15:50:00.001-05:00

Here is a list of games I'm likely to be playing New Year's Eve (I play them most years):
 
Bottoms Up, Blackout, and likely a long session of Sorry!
 
Happy New Year!

Stupid Dice Tricks

2009-12-30T09:44:00.000-05:00

A couple of Dice Games. "Farkle" is a version of "Dice" we play when we are braindead after a few beers:

Drop Dead

Avoid rolling twos or fives, or you'll "drop dead!"

Game Summary

OBJECT OF THE GAME:

To obtain the highest score after one round of play.

EQUIPMENT:

Five 6-sided dice.

Paper and pencil for keeping score.

A dice cup. (optional)

NUMBER OF PLAYERS:

2 to 12

HOW TO PLAY:

The game is played in a single round.

On their turn, a player rolls all five dice and then checks to see if they rolled any 2's or 5's.

• If any of the dice show a 2 or a 5, the player scores no points and sets aside any of the dice that display a 2 or 5. Those dice are now "dead" and are not used for the remainder of the player's turn.

For example, if a player rolled 1, 2, 4, 4, 5 then they would score no points and they would set aside the dice showing the 2 and the 5.

• If none of the dice show 2's or 5's, the player should sum up the numbers on all the dice they rolled and add that amount to their score.

For example, if a player rolled 1, 3, 3, 4, 6 then they would score 17 points.

The player then rolls any remaining dice and again checks for 2's or 5's as above. The player should continue to roll and score until they no longer have any dice. At that point they have "dropped dead" and they pass the dice to the next player.

WINNING:

The player with the highest score at the end of the round is the winner.

VARIATIONS:

• Round and Round:

This variant is the same as Drop Dead, except:

o The game is played over a series of several rounds, such as three or five, instead of just one.

Farkle

A fun and challenging dice game with multiple variations and scoring options.

Game Summary

OBJECT OF THE GAME:

To score a minimum of 10,000 points.

EQUIPMENT:

Six 6-sided dice.

A score sheet and pencil for keeping score.

One or more dice cups (optional).

NUMBER OF PLAYERS:

2 or more, but best with 3-8

Alternate Names

10000

Ten Thousand

Zilch

6 Dice

HOW TO PLAY:

These are the most commonly-used Farkle rules, but there are many variations (see Variations below). Before the game begins, players should establish which rules or variations will be used.

One player is chosen to begin and play moves clockwise around the table. Each player in turn rolls all six dice and checks to see if they have rolled any scoring dice or combinations. (See Scoring below.) Any dice that score are set aside and then the player may choose to roll all the remaining dice. If all six dice have been set aside for scoring (known as having “hot dice”), the player can choose to roll all six dice again and continue adding to their accumulated score or they can bank their points, end their turn, and pass the dice to the next player.

A player’s turn continues until either they decide to stop and score their accumulated points or until they fail to roll any scoring dice on a throw. If a player scores no points on a roll, they get a Farkle and lose all accumulated points for that turn.

At the end of a player’s turn, any points they have scored are written down and the dice are passed to the next player.

SCORING:

1 100 Points

5 50 Points

Three 1's 1,000 Points

Three 2's 200 Points

Three 3's 300 Points

Three 4's 400 Points

Three 5's 500 Points

Three 6's 600 Points

1-2-3-4-5-6 3000 Points

3 Pairs 1500 Points (including 4-of-a-kind and a pair)

Note that scoring combinations only count when made with a single throw. (Example: If a player rolls a 1 and sets it aside and then rolls two 1’s on their next throw, they only score 300 points, not 3000.)

Sometimes a single roll will provide multiple ways to score. For example, a player rolling 1-2-4-5-5-5 could score one of the following:

• 100 points for the 1.

• 150 points for the 1 and 5.

• 500 points for the three 5's.

• 600 points for the 1 and the three 5's.

• 650 points for the 1 and the three 5's and the single remaining 5.

WINNING:

The first player to score a total of 10,000 or more points wins, provided that no other players with a remaining turn can exceed that score.

VARIATIONS:

• Scoring Variations

These scoring variations can be used in combination with, or in place of, the basic scoring scheme above.

o Three pairs = 500 points

Alternatively: 600, 750, 1000, or 1,500 points

o Four of a kind = 2x (double) the 3-of-a-kind value

Alternatively: 1000 points

Alternatively: 4x the 3-of-a-kind value

o Five of a kind = Triple the 3-of-a-kind value

Alternatively: 2000 points

Alternatively: 6x the 3-of-a-kind value

o Six of a kind = Quadruple the 3-of-a-kind value

Alternatively: 3000 points

Alternatively: 8x the 3-of-a-kind value

o Six 1’s = 5000 points

Alternatively: The player instantly wins

o Two triplets = 2500 points

o Three 1’s = 200 points (Known as a Pocket Farkle)

o No points for a straight

o Straight = 1500 points

Alternatively: 2000 or 3000 points

• Opening Score

This variant is the same as Farkle, except:

o When the game begins, each player must continue throwing the dice until they have scored at least 500 points or until they Farkle. Once they have reached the 500 points, they are free to continue rolling or end their turn.

 Opening scores of 350, 400, 600, or 1000 points may be used instead of 500.

• Alternative Winning Score

This variant is the same as Farkle, except:

o The target score needed to win the game is greater or less than 10,000 (e.g., 20,000 or 5000)

• Hot Dice Roll

This variant is the same as Farkle, except:

o A player who scores on all six dice must roll them all again at least once.

• Three Farkles

This variant is the same as Farkle, except:

o A player who rolls three Farkles in a row loses 1000 points.

• Toxic Twos

This variant is the same as Farkle, except:

o Four or more 2’s thrown in a single roll cancels the player’s entire score for that turn.

• High Stakes (or Greed)

This variant is the same as Farkle, except:

o A player may choose to begin their turn by rolling the dice remaining from the previous player’s turn (e.g., those dice that were not set aside for scoring from the previous player’s turn). If the player scores with any of the dice on the first roll, they receive 1000 points in addition to any other points they may accumulate.

• Welfare

This variant is the same as Farkle, except:

o A player must score exactly 10,000 points to win the game. If a player scores more than 10,000 points, then all points scored that turn are given to the player with the lowest score.

• Five Dice Farkle

This variant is the same as Farkle, except:

o Five dice are used instead of six. (Obviously, certain scoring combinations, such as three pair, are impossible using this variant.)

• Team Farkle

This variant is the same as Farkle, except:

o The game is played in teams. Teammates sit opposite each other at the table and combine their scores. The game is typically played to 20,000 points instead of 10,000.

Afghanistan Fight Is On

2009-12-07T20:51:00.000-05:00

Afghanistan Fight Is On

Welcome to Hell. Craig's War

2009-12-04T16:50:00.002-05:00

KABUL — U.S. Marines and Afghan troops on Friday launched the first offensive since President Obama announced an American troop surge, striking against Taliban communications and supply lines in a southern insurgent stronghold, a military spokesman said.

Hundreds of troops from the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marines and the Marine reconnaissance unit Task Force Raider were dropped by helicopter and MV-22 Osprey aircraft behind Taliban lines in the northern end of the Now Zad Valley of Helmand province, scene of heavy fighting last summer, according to Marine spokesman Maj. William Pelletier.

A U.S. military official in Washington said it was the first use of Ospreys, aircrafts that combine features of helicopters and fixed wing aircraft, in an offensive involving units larger than platoons.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to detail the operation, said that Ospreys have previously been used for intelligence and patrol operations.

A second, larger force pushed northward from the Marines' Forward Operating Base in the town of Now Zad, Pelletier said. Combat engineers were forcing a corridor through Taliban minefields with armored steamrollers and explosives, Pelletier said.

In all, about 1,000 Marines as well as Afghan troops were taking part in the operation, known as "Cobra's Anger," he said.

There were no reports of NATO casualties. The spokesman for the Afghan governor of Helmand province, Daood Ahmadi, said the bodies of four slain Taliban had been recovered. Ahmadi said 150 Afghan troops were taking part in the operation, which had located more than 300 mines and roadside bombs by Friday evening.

The operation began three days after Obama announced that he was sending 30,000 reinforcements to Afghanistan to help turn the tide against the Taliban. America's European allies will send an estimated 7,000 more troops to Afghanistan next year "with more to come," NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced Friday.

Most of the new troops are expected to be sent to southern Afghanistan, including Helmand, where Taliban influence is strongest.

The new offensive aims to cut off the Taliban communication routes through Helmand and disrupt their supply lines, especially those providing explosives for the numerous lethal roadside bombs, or improvised explosive devices, that litter the area, known by Marines as "IED Alley."

Pelletier said several arms caches and at least 400 pounds of explosive materials had been found so far Friday.

"Right now, the enemy is confused and disorganized," Pelletier said by telephone from Camp Leatherneck, the main Marines base in Helmand. "They're fighting, but not too effectively."

Pelletier said insurgents were caught off guard by the early morning air assault.

Now Zad used to be one of the largest towns in Helmand province, the center of Afghanistan's lucrative opium poppy growing industry.

However, three years of fighting have chased away Now Zad's 30,000 inhabitants, leaving the once-thriving market and commercial area a ghost town.

British troops who were once stationed there left graffiti dubbing the town "Apocalypse Now-Zad," a play on the title of the 1979 Vietnam War movie Apocalypse Now. The British base was nearly overrun on several occasions with insurgents coming within yards (meters) of the protection wall. The area was handed over in 2008 to the Marines, who have struggled to reclaim much of the valley.

In August, the Marines launched their first large-scale offensive in the barren, wind-swept and opium-poppy growing valley surrounded by steep cliffs with dozens of caves providing cover to Taliban units.

More than 100 hardline insurgents are believed to operate in the area, their positions so solid that a fixed frontline runs just a few hundred yards (meters) north of the Marines' base, according to Associated Press reporters who were with the Marines there last summer.

Self-Pity

2009-12-04T08:51:00.001-05:00

SELF-PITY IS AN OPIATE.
 
The most insidious problem with drugs is that the human body develops a tolerance for them and requires larger and larger doses to achieve the same effect. The same is true with self-pity. The more you allow yourself to indulge in it, the more you will require. Soon, self-pity will become a habit, one so debilitating that you will rob yourself of all the potential you possess. Happily, there is a cure. If you truly analyze the situation, most often you will find that the problems that have driven you to pity yourself are mostly of your own creation. It follows, then, that the best person to remedy the problem is the person who created it: you yourself.

Poopsies Pizza in Pembroke or Sing along with Harry

2009-11-18T14:43:00.002-05:00

Hey folks, just a reminder.
Poopsies Pizza Friday night.

Check out Harry

Roast Bill for Thanksgiving anyone?

2009-11-17T09:07:00.001-05:00

"With 2:08 left and the Colts with only one timeout, a successful 4th-and-2 conversion wins the game for all practical purposes. A conversion on 4th-and-2 would be successful 60 percent of the time. 
 
Historically, in a situation with 2:00 left and needing a TD to either win or tie, teams get the TD 53 percent of the time from that field position. 
 
The total win probability for the 4th-down conversion attempt would therefore be:
 
(0.60 * 1) + (0.40 * (1-0.53)) = 0.79 WP (WP stands for win probability)
 
A punt from the 28 typically nets 38 yards, starting the Colts at their 34. 
 
Teams historically get the TD 30 percent of the time in that situation. So the punt gives the Pats about a 0.70 WP.
 
So, historically on average, it was the right call.
 
Fuck you Rodney Harrison and Teddy Bruschi.

Making Life Easy...

2009-11-17T08:47:00.001-05:00

MAKING LIFE "EASY" FOR CHILDREN USUALLY MAKES LIFE "HARD" FOR THEM IN ADULTHOOD.
 
Del Smith, the millionaire founder and chairman of Evergreen International Aviation, has often said, "Thank God I was born poor; I learned how to work." Like many others who made it to the top on their own, Smith believes that the greatest gift that can be given to a child is to teach him or her the value of work. It is a gift that can never be lost or stolen. It's a natural desire of parents to give their children material things they didn't have as children. Such generosity, however, often deprives children of the greatest gift you can give them: confidence in their ability to take care of themselves. When you make life "hard" for your children by requiring them to learn the value of work, they will have a far greater likelihood of success as adults. 

Video of Now Zad. This is where Craig is now.

2009-11-14T10:51:00.001-05:00

Happy Birthday Carl, Craig, Mac and all you Dogs out there

2009-11-10T10:54:00.000-05:00

Bears join the international fight on terrorism

2009-11-03T15:12:00.000-05:00

Srinagar, Nov 2 (IANS)

A wild bear mauled to death two militants of the Hizbul Mujahideen outfit in a south Kashmir forest Monday, officials said.

A spokesman of the army said a wild bear entered the forest hideout of the separatist guerrillas and killed two of them in Kulgam district.

‘The bear entered the hideout of the terrorists in Dand Nar forest area in Kulgam district today and killed two Hizbul Mujahideen terrorists identified as Saifullah and Qaiser,’ the spokesman said.

The spokesman said Saifullah was the district commander of the Hizbul Mujahideen for Pir Panchal area while Qaiser was a tehsil (sub-district) commander of the outfit.

‘We have recovered in the hideout two AK-47 rifles, four magazines and some other equipment the terrorists had been using ,’ the spokesman said.

It is the first time in the over two decade-long separatist violence in Kashmir that a wild animal has killed separatist guerrillas who often use the densely forested mountains here to build safe havens.
http://trak.in/news/wild-bear-kills-...kashmir/19562/

France

2009-10-28T07:10:00.000-04:00

MANY advocates of a universal healthcare system in the United States look to Canada for their model. While the Canadian healthcare system has much to recommend it, there's another model that has been too long neglected. That is the healthcare system in France.

Although the French system faces many challenges, the World Health Organization rated it the best in the world in 2001 because of its universal coverage, responsive healthcare providers, patient and provider freedoms, and the health and longevity of the country's population. The United States ranked 37.

The French system is also not inexpensive. At $3,500 per capita it is one of the most costly in Europe, yet that is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States.

An understanding of how France came to its healthcare system would be instructive in any renewed debate in the United States.

That's because the French share Americans' distaste for restrictions on patient choice and they insist on autonomous private practitioners rather than a British-style national health service, which the French dismiss as "socialized medicine." Virtually all physicians in France participate in the nation's public health insurance, Sécurité Sociale.

Their freedoms of diagnosis and therapy are protected in ways that would make their managed-care-controlled US counterparts envious. However, the average American physician earns more than five times the average US wage while the average French physician makes only about two times the average earnings of his or her compatriots. But the lower income of French physicians is allayed by two factors. Practice liability is greatly diminished by a tort-averse legal system, and medical schools, although extremely competitive to enter, are tuition-free. Thus, French physicians enter their careers with little if any debt and pay much lower malpractice insurance premiums.

Nor do France's doctors face the high nonmedical personnel payroll expenses that burden American physicians. Sécurité Sociale has created a standardized and speedy system for physician billing and patient reimbursement using electronic funds.

It's not uncommon to visit a French medical office and see no nonmedical personnel. What a concept. No back office army of billing specialists who do daily battle with insurers' arcane and constantly changing rules of payment.

Moreover, in contrast to Canada and Britain, there are no waiting lists for elective procedures and patients need not seek pre-authorizations. In other words, like in the United States, "rationing" is not a word that leaves the lips of hopeful politicians. How might the French case inform the US debate over healthcare reform?

National health insurance in France stands upon two grand historical bargains -- the first with doctors and a second with insurers.

Doctors only agreed to participate in compulsory health insurance if the law protected a patient's choice of practitioner and guaranteed physicians' control over medical decision-making. Given their current frustrations, America's doctors might finally be convinced to throw their support behind universal health insurance if it protected their professional judgment and created a sane system of billing and reimbursement.

French legislators also overcame insurance industry resistance by permitting the nation's already existing insurers to administer its new healthcare funds. Private health insurers are also central to the system as supplemental insurers who cover patient expenses that are not paid for by Sécurité Sociale. Indeed, nearly 90 percent of the French population possesses such coverage, making France home to a booming private health insurance market.

The French system strongly discourages the kind of experience rating that occurs in the United States, making it more difficult for insurers to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or to those who are not in good health. In fact, in France, the sicker you are, the more coverage, care, and treatment you get. Would American insurance companies cut a comparable deal?

Like all healthcare systems, the French confront ongoing problems. Today French reformers' number one priority is to move health insurance financing away from payroll and wage levies because they hamper employers' willingness to hire. Instead, France is turning toward broad taxes on earned and unearned income alike to pay for healthcare.

American advocates of mandates on employers to provide health insurance should take note. The link between employment and health security is a historical artifact whose disadvantages now far outweigh its advantages. Economists estimate that between 25 and 45 percent of the US labor force is now job-locked. That is, employees make career decisions based on their need to maintain affordable health coverage or avoid exclusion based on a preexisting condition.

As you can see, many legal hurdles would need to be overcome for the US to engage in a French-like Healthcare system.

By Paul V. Dutton

August 11, 2007

The "Right" to Healthcare?

2009-10-24T17:18:00.000-04:00

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen:

Most people who oppose socialized medicine do so on the grounds that it is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical; i.e., it is a noble idea -- which just somehow does not work. I do not agree that socialized medicine is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical. Of course, it is impractical -- it does not work -- but I hold that it is impractical because it is immoral. This is not a case of noble in theory but a failure in practice; it is a case of vicious in theory and therefore a disaster in practice. So I'm going to leave it to other speakers to concentrate on the practical flaws in the [socialized] health plan. I want to focus on the moral issue at stake. So long as people believe that socialized medicine is a noble plan, there is no way to fight it. You cannot stop a noble plan -- not if it really is noble. The only way you can defeat it is to unmask it -- to show that it is the very opposite of noble. Then at least you have a fighting chance.

What is morality in this context? The American concept of it is officially stated in the Declaration of Independence. It upholds man's unalienable, individual rights. The term "rights," note, is a moral (not just a political) term; it tells us that a certain course of behavior is right, sanctioned, proper, a prerogative to be respected by others, not interfered with -- and that anyone who violates a man's rights is: wrong, morally wrong, unsanctioned, evil.

Now our only rights, the American viewpoint continues, are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all. According to the Founding Fathers, we are not born with a right to a trip to Disneyland, or a meal at Mcdonald's, or a kidney dialysis (nor with the 18th-century equivalent of these things). We have certain specific rights -- and only these.

Why only these? Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want -- not to be given it without effort by somebody else.

The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.

To take one more example: the right to the pursuit of happiness is precisely that: the right to the pursuit -- to a certain type of action on your part and its result -- not to any guarantee that other people will make you happy or even try to do so. Otherwise, there would be no liberty in the country: if your mere desire for something, anything, imposes a duty on other people to satisfy you, then they have no choice in their lives, no say in what they do, they have no liberty, they cannot pursue their happiness. Your "right" to happiness at their expense means that they become rightless serfs, i.e., your slaves. Your right to anything at others' expense means that they become rightless.

That is why the U.S. system defines rights as it does, strictly as the rights to action. This was the approach that made the U.S. the first truly free country in all world history -- and, soon afterwards, as a result, the greatest country in history, the richest and the most powerful. It became the most powerful because its view of rights made it the most moral. It was the country of individualism and personal independence.

Today, however, we are seeing the rise of principled immorality in this country. We are seeing a total abandonment by the intellectuals and the politicians of the moral principles on which the U.S. was founded. We are seeing the complete destruction of the concept of rights. The original American idea has been virtually wiped out, ignored as if it had never existed. The rule now is for politicians to ignore and violate men's actual rights, while arguing about a whole list of rights never dreamed of in this country's founding documents -- rights which require no earning, no effort, no action at all on the part of the recipient.

You are entitled to something, the politicians say, simply because it exists and you want or need it -- period. You are entitled to be given it by the government. Where does the government get it from? What does the government have to do to private citizens -- to their individual rights -- to their real rights -- in order to carry out the promise of showering free services on the people?

The answers are obvious. The newfangled rights wipe out real rights -- and turn the people who actually create the goods and services involved into servants of the state. The Russians tried this exact system for many decades. Unfortunately, we have not learned from their experience. Yet the meaning of socialism (this is the right name for socialized medical plan) is clearly evident in any field at all -- you don't need to think of health care as a special case; it is just as apparent if the government were to proclaim a universal right to food, or to a vacation, or to a haircut. I mean: a right in the new sense: not that you are free to earn these things by your own effort and trade, but that you have a moral claim to be given these things free of charge, with no action on your part, simply as handouts from a benevolent government.

How would these alleged new rights be fulfilled? Take the simplest case: you are born with a moral right to hair care, let us say, provided by a loving government free of charge to all who want or need it. What would happen under such a moral theory?

Haircuts are free, like the air we breathe, so some people show up every day for an expensive new styling, the government pays out more and more, barbers revel in their huge new incomes, and the profession starts to grow ravenously, bald men start to come in droves for free hair implantations, a school of fancy, specialized eyebrow pluckers develops -- it's all free, the government pays. The dishonest barbers are having a field day, of course -- but so are the honest ones; they are working and spending like mad, trying to give every customer his heart's desire, which is a millionaire's worth of special hair care and services -- the government starts to scream, the budget is out of control. Suddenly directives erupt: we must limit the number of barbers, we must limit the time spent on haircuts, we must limit the permissible type of hair styles; bureaucrats begin to split hairs about how many hairs a barber should be allowed to split. A new computerized office of records filled with inspectors and red tape shoots up; some barbers, it seems, are still getting too rich, they must be getting more than their fair share of the national hair, so barbers have to start applying for Certificates of Need in order to buy razors, while peer review boards are established to assess every stylist's work, both the dishonest and the overly honest alike, to make sure that no one is too bad or too good or too busy or too unbusy. Etc. In the end, there are lines of wretched customers waiting for their chance to be routinely scalped by bored, hog-tied haircutters some of whom remember dreamily the old days when somehow everything was so much better.

Do you think the situation would be improved by having hair-care cooperatives organized by the government? -- having them engage in managed competition, managed by the government, in order to buy haircut insurance from companies controlled by the government?

If this is what would happen under government-managed hair care, what else can possibly happen -- it is already starting to happen -- under the idea of health care as a right? Health care in the modern world is a complex, scientific, technological service. How can anybody be born with a right to such a thing?

Under the American system you have a right to health care if you can pay for it, i.e., if you can earn it by your own action and effort. But nobody has the right to the services of any professional individual or group simply because he wants them and desperately needs them. The very fact that he needs these services so desperately is the proof that he had better respect the freedom, the integrity, and the rights of the people who provide them.

You have a right to work, not to rob others of the fruits of their work, not to turn others into sacrificial, rightless animals laboring to fulfill your needs.

Some of you may ask here: But can people afford health care on their own? Even leaving aside the present government-inflated medical prices, the answer is: Certainly people can afford it. Where do you think the money is coming from right now to pay for it all -- where does the government get its fabled unlimited money? Government is not a productive organization; it has no source of wealth other than confiscation of the citizens' wealth, through taxation, deficit financing or the like.

But, you may say, isn't it the "rich" who are really paying the costs of medical care now -- the rich, not the broad bulk of the people? As has been proved time and again, there are not enough rich anywhere to make a dent in the government's costs; it is the vast middle class in the U.S. that is the only source of the kind of money that national programs like government health care require. A simple example of this is the fact that the Administration's new program rests squarely on the backs not of Big Business, but of small businessmen who are struggling in today's economy merely to stay alive and in existence. Under any socialized program, it is the "little people" who do most of the paying for it -- under the senseless pretext that "the people" can't afford such and such, so the government must take over. If the people of a country truly couldn't afford a certain service -- as e.g. in Somalia -- neither, for that very reason, could any government in that country afford it, either.

Some people can't afford medical care in the U.S. But they are necessarily a small minority in a free or even semi-free country. If they were the majority, the country would be an utter bankrupt and could not even think of a national medical program. As to this small minority, in a free country they have to rely solely on private, voluntary charity. Yes, charity, the kindness of the doctors or of the better off -- charity, not right, i.e. not their right to the lives or work of others. And such charity, I may say, was always forthcoming in the past in America. The advocates of Medicaid and Medicare under LBJ did not claim that the poor or old in the '60's got bad care; they claimed that it was an affront for anyone to have to depend on charity.

But the fact is: You don't abolish charity by calling it something else. If a person is getting health care for nothing, simply because he is breathing, he is still getting charity, whether or not the President calls it a "right." To call it a Right when the recipient did not earn it is merely to compound the evil. It is charity still -- though now extorted by criminal tactics of force, while hiding under a dishonest name.

As with any good or service that is provided by some specific group of men, if you try to make its possession by all a right, you thereby enslave the providers of the service, wreck the service, and end up depriving the very consumers you are supposed to be helping. To call "medical care" a right will merely enslave the doctors and thus destroy the quality of medical care in this country, as socialized medicine has done around the world, wherever it has been tried, including Canada (I was born in Canada and I know a bit about that system first hand).

I would like to clarify the point about socialized medicine enslaving the doctors. Let me quote here from an article I wrote a few years ago: "Medicine: The Death of a Profession." [The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought, NAL Books, c 1988 by the Estate of Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff.]

"In medicine, above all, the mind must be left free. Medical treatment involves countless variables and options that must be taken into account, weighed, and summed up by the doctor's mind and subconscious. Your life depends on the private, inner essence of the doctor's function: it depends on the input that enters his brain, and on the processing such input receives from him. What is being thrust now into the equation? It is not only objective medical facts any longer. Today, in one form or another, the following also has to enter that brain: 'The DRG administrator [in effect, the hospital or HMO man trying to control costs] will raise hell if I operate, but the malpractice attorney will have a field day if I don't -- and my rival down the street, who heads the local PRO [Peer Review Organization], favors a CAT scan in these cases, I can't afford to antagonize him, but the CON boys disagree and they won't authorize a CAT scanner for our hospital -- and besides the FDA prohibits the drug I should be prescribing, even though it is widely used in Europe, and the IRS might not allow the patient a tax deduction for it, anyhow, and I can't get a specialist's advice because the latest Medicare rules prohibit a consultation with this diagnosis, and maybe I shouldn't even take this patient, he's so sick -- after all, some doctors are manipulating their slate of patients, they accept only the healthiest ones, so their average costs are coming in lower than mine, and it looks bad for my staff privileges.' Would you like your case to be treated this way -- by a doctor who takes into account your objective medical needs and the contradictory, unintelligible demands of some ninety different state and Federal government agencies? If you were a doctor could you comply with all of it? Could you plan or work around or deal with the unknowable? But how could you not? Those agencies are real and they are rapidly gaining total power over you and your mind and your patients. In this kind of nightmare world, if and when it takes hold fully, thought is helpless; no one can decide by rational means what to do. A doctor either obeys the loudest authority -- or he tries to sneak by unnoticed, bootlegging some good health care occasionally or, as so many are doing now, he simply gives up and quits the field."

The [socialized medical] plan will finish off quality medicine in this country -- because it will finish off the medical profession. It will deliver doctors bound hands and feet to the mercies of the bureaucracy.

The only hope -- for the doctors, for their patients, for all of us -- is for the doctors to assert a moral principle. I mean: to assert their own personal individual rights -- their real rights in this issue -- their right to their lives, their liberty, their property, their pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of Independence applies to the medical profession too. We must reject the idea that doctors are slaves destined to serve others at the behest of the state.

I'd like to conclude with a sentence from Ayn Rand. Doctors, she wrote, are not servants of their patients. They are "traders, like everyone else in a free society, and they should bear that title proudly, considering the crucial importance of the services they offer."

The battle against the [socialized medical] plan, in my opinion, depends on the doctors speaking out against the plan -- but not only on practical grounds -- rather, first of all, on moral grounds. The doctors must defend themselves and their own interests as a matter of solemn justice, upholding a moral principle, the first moral principle: self- preservation. If they can do it, all of us will still have a chance. I hope it is not already too late. Thank you.

Victor!!!!

2009-10-10T23:59:00.000-04:00

@ Chili's tonight. Ha Ha Ha. Eat your heart out, Dave!!!! Go Lions!

Board Games Convention!

2009-10-08T07:38:00.000-04:00

Hi all! I went to this convention last year and had an absolute awesome time! I learned several new games, bought a couple, played a bunch, had a few beers, and the people were way beyond nice...for geeks.

UGXVI

Dave, is this you?

2009-09-25T13:17:00.001-04:00

Feng Shui

2009-09-25T10:36:00.000-04:00

Our House:

Toward Tony's house is due North. Toward Edwina's, Due South.

Southeast - 8 White
Front Door, Small Study
This Earth Ox year 2009 sees the Southeast becoming the absolute best Wealth location and also the most auspicious in general! This particular location is fertile grounds for anyone to tap into in order to generate a good income this year.

The Wealth Qi, or energy, enters a premise through the Southeast this year, so it’s also a very auspicious area to spend time or even sleep in because you are directly receiving the positive energies of the year when you do so. Those who have homes or offices with the main doors located in the Southeast are blessed too this year because you will be tapping into the auspicious #8 White year-long. Financial returns are highly likely, and furthermore you will be blessed with strong Career luck!

If your home does not have a Main Door, living space or bedroom in the Southeast, you can still enjoy the benefits of this star’s wonderful energy by tapping into this area. To do so, enhance the location with Wealth items with strong Yang property such as the dragon.

South - 4 Green

Staircase Wall, Pretties Hutch

This Earth Ox year 2009 sees the South Palace blessed by the arrival of the #4 Green Star. Academic pursuits will benefit immensely from this location and furthermore those in literary or research fields will also do well to spend time or sleep in the South this year!

Those with Main Doors located in the South will be blessed with Career and Romance luck, and there will be many opportunities for traveling to fun, exotic destinations, too.

Southwest - 6 White

Bathrooms, part of kitchen

The year 2009 sees the auspicious star #6 White align in the Southwest, therefore those who are seeking recognition, fame and making an impact in general should tap into this area for the year. Aside from this, the Southwest also promises a strengthening of your influence at work, too.

It’s an overall positive location for your Wealth and Career potential, but sadly this usually positive star has a downside to residents or homes and offices with Main Doors in the Southwest because there is possible health problems related to the leg areas. Therefore if you have a current injury to your leg or if you’re simply accident-prone, keep away as much as you can from this area.

West - 2 Black

Main Kitchen, Back Door, Bedroom

The West sector is maligned by the presence of the negative #2 Black star this Earth Ox year 2009. As one can imagine, all kinds of negative impact such as sicknesses, illnesses and all kinds of health hazards await those who sleep or spend too much time in the West.

Properties with Main Doors located in the West will also be affected in one negative way or another throughout the entire year, unfortunately enough, but this will be particularly the case for those with the Gua numbers Seven or Four.

Though the West location is considered one of the more negative areas for the Earth Ox year, there is a mixed blessing involved! Apparently, dwellers with the Gua Eight will be augmented with good luck and fortune related to real estate or property buys. As for Gua Three people, their careers may take a turn for the positive when they spend some time in the West.

Therefore, the location’s negative energy may be weakened with metal cures such as Feng Shui items made of brass, copper, pewter or other metals.

Northwest - 1 White

Dining Room, Back door, Bedroom

New ventures, new beginnings and positive comebacks are the featured luck prospects of the Northwest this Earth Ox year 2009! People with Gua numbers One or Nine stand a chance to receive the best kind of energy from the Northwest – indeed, if you spend plenty of your time or even sleep in this particular location your entire life path will be better and more positive throughout the entire year.

Partners who wish to enter a commitment ceremony such as engagements or weddings this year will do well to spend lots of their time in the Northwest. Couples who are keen to have a baby can do the same, too.

Aside from this, the Northwest is considered the secondary Wealth sector of the year after the Southeast, so it’s a positive area for conducting your work or business affairs.

North - 5 Yellow

Dining Room/Living Room.

Alert! The North Palace this Earth Ox year is considered the most hazardous location with its presence of the #5 Yellow star. The problems related to the North this year range from bodily harm through accidents to mishaps and adversity.

It’s the most negative area therefore any kind of important activity shouldn’t be conducted at all in this area year long. You should also stall any kind of renovation work in the North, too, because any kind of ground-breaking can activate and even aggravate the star’s bad points all the more.

To ensure that one is safe from harm, the North must be kept quiet and under-utilized as much as possible. If this is not a feasible option and you must be located in the North, you can weaken the negative effects of the #5 yellow star by placing metal cures.

Northeast - 3 Jade

TV location, Large study

Strong disagreements, quarrels and even physical fights are likely for those who reside in the Northeast sector this Earth Ox year 2009, or if your Main Door is located here. The more extreme negative effects of the #3 Jade star are legal complications and the possibility of lawsuits! Gua Three people are the most affected by the Northeast’s negative luck this year.

You can lessen the effects of this star considerably by decorating the Northeast with a red lampshade or red carpet year-long. One may also make use of Feng Shui incense burners in the Northeast, because lighting up incense is akin to mustering up the Fire element to counter the negativity of the #3 Jade.

East - 7 Red

Street, Front Yard

The Robbery Star #7 Red resides in the East Palace this Earth Ox year 2009 and though this star’s chief mayhem is loss of wealth, there are a host of other negative impacts such as hot tempers, argumentative ways and even health problems to a degree that hospitalization may be needed!

Those who have the home or office Main Door located in the East will do well to stay away from office politicking as well as intense rivalries of any kind, because the outcome will likely be disastrous. Aside from this it is also highly advised for you to change locks and buying insurance to be on the safe side!

Wubbie Dubbie

2009-09-25T09:39:00.007-04:00

On the Dog Pen Gate

2009-09-25T09:32:00.002-04:00

I took this last night, out back.
Simply Beautiful!

Uhm Mark, did you post this?

2009-09-17T08:19:00.002-04:00

Ferocious Attack Kitten
Date: 2008-06-02, 7:10PM CDT
Ferocious attack kitten is available for adoption to any home willing to accept him. This destructive kitty has been trained as a proud warrior and will fiercely defend your house, even against you.
Well-trained since 10-weeks of age to attack anything in his presence, he will protect your family from evil things, including the following: * insects * other trained attack kittens * babies * toilet paper * anything under a blanket * unwanted house guests * paper bags * floor rugs * Chuck Norris * Feet.
Great with children (assuming you don?t like the children). Probably best used for professional catfighting. He is housebroken, but only because he wants to be.
This attack cat has trained himself to seek out his food anywhere you hide it and rip the bag open to feed himself, great for those who travel extensively. Also trained to drink water out of toilet bowls and dishwater from items in the sink.
Knows how to open some doors. He will find you wherever you hide. Neutered (trust me, you wont want to him to procreate).
Has not been declawed, but you'll figure that out really fast.
Understands and responds to a variety of vulgar and profane verbal commands.
Has a very soft and furry belly, like a teddy bear - however he will bite your face if you try to touch it.
Willing to accept trades. Potential adopters must have experience with trained attack-kittens... please be prepared to show scars. For the love of God, someone please take this thing out of my house.

Jackass

2009-09-16T12:11:00.001-04:00

"I thought that was really inappropriate," Obama says. "What are you butting in (for)? ... The young lady seems like a perfectly nice person. She's getting her award. What's he doing up there?"
A questioner chimes in, "Why would he do it?"
 
"He's a jackass," Obama replies, which is met with laughter from several people.
The president seems to quickly realize he may have gone too far, and jovially appeals to those assembled that the remark be kept private. "Come on guys," he says. "Cut the president some slack. I've got a lot of other stuff on my plate."

"seems" like a nice person? Even if she wasn't a 'nice person', what has that got to do with it?
 
"Cut the president some slack"? Why? Are you not supposed to be our gleaming savior? WWJD? (What Would Jesus Do?)

Good Bye, Fred.

2009-09-15T16:42:00.001-04:00

Fred Cusick, the broadcast voice of the Boston Bruins [team stats] for over 40 years and a major New England broadcaster for six decades, died early this morning at his home on Cape Cod. He was 90.

Oh Yeah

2009-09-15T11:59:00.000-04:00

Obama's Dragnet

2009-09-14T19:04:00.000-04:00